Octopuses are Aliens

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-24-2015, 04:24 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: The more I read what you type, the more I am convinced you don't know what the F you are talking about.  I still like you a whole bunch though.  

I'll be happy to straighten you out if you'll kindly point out what it is that you don't understand. 

In the meantime...i'll see if i can muster up some like for you.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-24-2015, 07:25 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: ..i'll see if i can muster up some like for you.

see...you can't help but post BS.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-21-2015, 11:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Enough about me.

It was just to illustrate how absolutely moronic scientists can be it an attempt to figure out a created being.

We have introduced the "jumping gene".

(08-22-2015, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I did not say scientists were moronic. I simply said they can be (most likely should have said appear) when they try to explain something they don't understand. 

I just let you guys have your fun for a time running with something that was never actually said.

These two posts are absolutely amazing.  You have managed to combine OSUfan' "I didn't call them children I just said they acted like children" with BengalRugby's "I didn't say that."  It's like you're their love child and have elevated trolling to an art form.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2015, 01:18 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: These two posts are absolutely amazing.  You have managed to combine OSUfan' "I didn't call them children I just said they acted like children" with BengalRugby's "I didn't say that."  It's like you're their love child and have elevated trolling to an art form.  

I have no idea how else I can say this:

bfine32 Wrote:Enough about me.

What is the fascination?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-25-2015, 01:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no idea how else I can say this:


What is the fascination?

I don't know why you are fascinated by posting shit you make up.  You tell me why you're fascinated.

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2015, 01:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't know why you are fascinated by posting shit you make up.  You tell me why you're fascinated.

Is this really the "I know you are but what am I" retort?

Classic.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-25-2015, 01:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this really the "I know you are but what am I" retort?

Classic.

No, it isn't. You're the person who took time out of their day to post a misleading quote taken out of context so you could claim scientists are moronic only to later claim you didn't claim they were moronic earlier.

So WTF is your point?

[fredtoast]

(08-24-2015, 02:30 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: There's much more of a statistical probability pointing towards a divine creator than against one. 

Show your work please.

Not saying you are wrong.  Just wondering what formula you used to come to this conclusion.

[fredtoast]

(08-24-2015, 11:38 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I never said it wasn't plausible. Just pointed out it's a statistical impossibility. 

Need to see the calculations on this also.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-25-2015, 12:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Show your work please.

Not saying you are wrong.  Just wondering what formula you used to come to this conclusion.

(08-25-2015, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Need to see the calculations on this also.

I too, would like to see some of the data that backs up these claims.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-25-2015, 04:39 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I too, would like to see some of the data that backs up these claims.

Last time this was requested of someone, we were told by TommyGA9SomeOtherVersionOfHim that all we needed to do was look around.  Specifically at trees.  Please don't ask for clarification as I don't fluently translate crazy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-24-2015, 02:48 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Like with anything, an accident becomes less of an accident when more facts/answers are added. And i'm not saying ID is completely logical against the accident argument. I'm just saying, unlike a lot of people, when more answers are added and those answers point to A + B + C + D = E, accident becomes less likely and design becomes more likely. 

Which explains why there isn't a cure for cancer, god designed it that way.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-25-2015, 12:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Show your work please.

Not saying you are wrong.  Just wondering what formula you used to come to this conclusion.

I've posted this before.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

Science will just continue to discover the complexities of the Universe, our planet, and any form of life, and the possibility of randomness will continue to grow smaller and smaller. I mean, it's already minuscule now. People just choose to ignore the information right in front of them. 

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".


To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.” 
― Paul Charles William Davies

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-25-2015, 06:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Which explains why there isn't a cure for cancer, god designed it that way.

I'm not following this line of thought.

[fredtoast]

(08-26-2015, 01:16 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I've posted this before.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

Science will just continue to discover the complexities of the Universe, our planet, and any form of life, and the possibility of randomness will continue to grow smaller and smaller. I mean, it's already minuscule now. People just choose to ignore the information right in front of them. 

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".


To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.” 
― Paul Charles William Davies

None of this proves anything.  If the laws of physics were a little different then the universe would just have evolved in a different manner.  And the existence of mathematical order does not mean there has to be an intelligent creator.

It may all seem too complex for us to explain at this time, but humans are mainly just making guesses about the beginning of the universe. An ant can not explain how a snowflake is created but that does not mean there had to be an intelligent creator to make the snowflake.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-26-2015, 01:16 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: People just choose to ignore the information right in front of them. 

(08-26-2015, 02:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: None of this proves anything.  If the laws of physics were a little different then the universe would just have evolved in a different manner.  And the existence of mathematical order does not mean there has to be an intelligent creator.

It may all seem too complex for us to explain at this time, but humans are mainly just making guesses about the beginning of the universe. An ant can not explain how a snowflake is created but that does not mean there had to be an intelligent creator to make the snowflake.

Keep on keepin' on.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-26-2015, 03:07 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Keep on keepin' on.

LOL...too ironic.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-26-2015, 07:10 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: LOL...too ironic.

So, basically, you disagree that more information = a better understanding and ability to come to a conclusion, and you are in the camp who feels like a strict set of parameters, not just one but many, is more likely a result of randomness as opposed to a design?

I'm not getting into a "God did it" debate here. This is only about the debate of random vs design.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2015, 12:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: So, basically, you disagree that more information = a better understanding and ability to come to a conclusion, and you are in the camp who feels like a strict set of parameters, not just one but many, is more likely a result of randomness as opposed to a design?

I'm not getting into a "God did it" debate here. This is only about the debate of random vs design.

I am of the opinion that " more information = a better understanding and ability to come to a conclusion" that it wasn't magic or a god but rather that there is still a lot to learn and the more we learn the less we need a divine reason for it.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-26-2015, 12:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: So, basically, you disagree that more information = a better understanding and ability to come to a conclusion, and you are in the camp who feels like a strict set of parameters, not just one but many, is more likely a result of randomness as opposed to a design?

I'm not getting into a "God did it" debate here. This is only about the debate of random vs design.

How you came to any of that conclusion based on my post is:

1.  interesting
2.  telling
3.  I don't have a three...I just feel lists should be in threes.

That being said, it is without a doubt that what you have written above is a prime example of what is inherently wrong with most of the debates in this forum.  I abhorrently despise this assumption without evidence that the majority of posters layout here as if you have quantified any and all of my beliefs on the topic through a response to a 3 word post.

Further more, it is disingenuous of you to go  beyond the post I responded to in order to further whatever narrative you subscribe to.  You know exactly what I was making light of.  I have more respect for you that your have shown me in the above abortion of an attempt to TommyGA9 me with false assumptions. 

Now that that has been taken care of..............






































































Bite me.   :blush: